Posts
A masteful analysis of the metamorphosis of liberal 'tolerance' into the cesspool of hatred and anti-Semitism and anti-western values.
Secular Tolerance for Arab and Muslim Intolerance
By Matthew M. Hausman
Former Israeli Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef recently took a public flogging for allegedly describing Islam as “ugly,” specifically with respect to its laws concerning marriage and divorce. The liberal blogosphere had a field day, calling the Rabbi a bigot and labeling his comments hate speech. But the bloggers provided no contextual counterbalance, such as a critical discussion of the defamation of Jews and Judaism that occurs routinely in the Arab press or the historical discrimination of Jews in Muslim society. Nor do they ever. Although these folks cry themselves hoarse concerning their right to free speech whenever challenged for their demonstrably biased reporting on Israel – or for lambasting comments such as those by Rabbi Yosef – they are silent whenever the subject is Arab or Muslim incitement or intolerance.
The story about Rabbi Yosef was reported on an Egyptian news website, which not surprisingly found his comments to be inflammatory. However, such expressions of moral outrage are curiously inconsistent with the Egyptian media’s routine publication of antisemitic content worthy of Der Stuermer. Egyptian media outlets commonly depict Jews as racially-distinctive, hook-nosed caricatures, report as fact a multitude of mythical Jewish conspiracies, exploit the antisemitic imagery of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and provide a forum for devotees of the blood libel. The government-sponsored newspapers Al-Ahram and Al-Goumhuriyya regularly run articles and cartoons in the classic antisemitic tradition, as do other sources throughout the Arab world. The media rogues’ gallery includes most major press outlets, including:
• Al Jazeera, which broadcasts the rants of clerics who quote Quran and Hadith in calling for the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jews.
• Al-Arab al-Yaum, a Jordanian daily that has published such offensive articles as “Killing Children According to Jewish Faith,” (March 8, 2008), which reported that Jews kill Gentile children and use their blood for religious rituals. The Damascus Blood Libel is clearly considered historical fact.
• SANA, the Syrian Arab News Agency, which has run stories calling the Holocaust a Zionist myth and describing Jewish or Zionist plots to colonize the Mideast.
• Al-Riyadh, the Saudi daily, which has printed articles reporting the blood libel as historical fact. As reported by MEMRI, for example, the newspaper in 2002 published an article in which the commentator expounded on the holiday of Purim, stating among other things that:
During this holiday [Purim], the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare –– it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets . . .
For this holiday, the victim must be a mature adolescent who is, of course, a non-Jew – that is, a Christian or a Muslim. His blood is taken and dried into granules. The cleric blends these granules into the pastry dough; they can also be saved for the next holiday. In contrast, for the Passover slaughtering, about which I intend to write one of these days, the blood of Christian and Muslim children under the age of 10 must be used, and the cleric can mix the blood [into the dough] before or after dehydration.
MEMRI, Special Dispatch No. 354, citing Al Riyadh, March 10, 2002.
Arab and other foreign media outlets have often disseminated stories about supposed Jewish plots for world domination, schemes to control financial institutions, and conspiracies to manipulate the media. Other popular themes have included “scholarly” claims of intrinsic religious corruption within Judaism, or pseudo-scientific reports suggesting that the Temple never stood in Jerusalem or that the Jews did not originate in ancient Israel, but rather were descended from non-indigenous peoples who usurped a country – Palestine – that never existed.
The mainstream media in the United States is quick to denounce any perceived affronts to Arab or Islamic culture, and just as quick to condemn any alleged expressions of Jewish or Israeli chauvinism. But the media is reluctant to criticize antisemitic expressions from Arab or Muslim sources, draw any connection between Islamism and terrorism, acknowledge the history of Arab expansion and colonialism, or discuss the supremacist implications of jihad – even as it openly plays out in Europe. Rather, liberal pundits often wax dreamily poetic when discussing the so-called “golden age of Islam” or the myth of Islamic tolerance. Moreover, they tend to rationalize any antisemitic or anti-Western expressions in the Arab world as reactions to Israeli intransigence or American colonialism.
In reality, there was no real sense of tolerance for “infidels” in the Arab-Muslim world. Historically, Jews in Arab lands were relegated to the status of dhimmi who often lived in ghettos, were endowed with few if any substantive rights, and were subject to the whim and whimsy of their hostile neighbors. Although many in the West believe that Jewish life was more tolerable through the ages in the Islamic lands, the general treatment of Jews there was in fact not much different than in Christian Europe, and sometimes was even worse.
During the early Islamic period, for example, Jews were required to wear distinctive badges or metal seals around their necks, and starting in the 9th Century the Caliphate in Baghdad required Jews to wear the yellow badge – a practice that was later adopted in Christian Europe during the Middle Ages. Starting in the year 1005, the Jews of Egypt were required to wear bells on their garments, and in Medieval Baghdad they were often physically branded. In many Arab countries Jews were required to live in ghettos and were not permitted to use the same public bath houses as Muslims. At various times throughout Islamic history, Jews of the Mideast and North Africa were subjected to pogroms, massacres and forced conversions just as they were in Europe.
Despite the fantasy of the “Golden Age of Spain” when Jews were supposedly free, equal and prosperous, Iberian Jewry often fared little better in Muslim Spain than in Christian Europe. The reality was famously evidenced by the experience of Maimonides. Despicable though the anti-Jewish policies of the Catholic Church may have been, the Rambam and his family were exiled from their native Cordoba not because of Christian persecution, but because the conquering Almohads gave the Jewish community the choice of conversion to Islam or death.
This is not to downplay the severity of historical European antisemitism, which found expression in, among other things, the anti-Jewish legislation of the Fourth Lateran Council, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Spanish Expulsion, the Chelmnitzky massacres, the Pogroms and the Holocaust. However, for those who might use the Holocaust as a measuring stick to say that hatred of Jews was worse in Europe than in the Muslim world, one could argue that it was only the expression that was more severe, not the doctrinal hatred itself. And in this regard, one must consider Arab-Muslim complicity with the Nazis, particularly where, as in Bosnia, Muslim Waffen-SS Hanjar units recruited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem assisted in exterminating Bosnian Jews. Moreover, in his testimony at Nuremberg, Dieter Wisliceny, Eichmann’s deputy and Hauptsturmfuhrer of Slovakia and Hungary, reportedly described the Mufti was an advisor to Eichmann and “one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry.”
In light of this history, any censure of Rabbi Yosef, who was born into dhimmitude in Iraq, can have no frame of reference absent a critical analysis of the traditionally precarious existence of Jews in the Islamic world. Those who wish to criticize Rabbi Yosef, or any other Sephardim or Mizrachim who lived in Muslim society, must first understand how the historical treatment of Jews under Islam molded their collective psyche. And when critical neophytes analyze the history, they must look beyond the revisionist myth of religious tolerance and instead focus on the harsh realities of jihad, dhimmitude, and the pervasive cultural denigration of the Jews and Judaism.
Interestingly, Western Jews who buy into the myth of benevolent tolerance are generally secular liberals and typically not of Sephardic, Mizrachi or Yemeni ancestry. If they were, they would be more likely to know – either from their own experiences or those of their parents and grandparents – what Jewish life was really like in Arab lands. And the stark realities of that life preceded the current geopolitical tumult of the Mideast by centuries. Indeed, Maimonides in his Epistle to Yemen in the 12th Century addressed the issue of Arab intolerance and persecution at a time when the Jews of Yemen were subjected to gross abuse and unspeakable violations. This dark chapter in Arab-Jewish relations clearly predated the Arab-Israeli conflict, and certainly attenuates the assumptions of those who claim that Arab-Muslim hostility today stems solely from Israeli aggression and is not endemic to that society.
Moreover, those familiar with the Quran know that the blueprint for dealing with Jews and Judaism is anything but benevolent, involving as it does the seminal account of the slaughter of the Jews of Yathrib (al-Medina). And the eschatology reflected in the Hadith speaks of the extermination of the Jews at the end of days. Against this backdrop, the experience of the Jews in Islamic society and Arab lands was typically perilous and often marked by social and economic repression, institutional indignities, and general discrimination.
This reality is ignored by secular liberals, and also by cultural naifs who believe that interfaith dialogue will bring about greater understanding. However, the doctrinal differences between Judaism and Islam are vast. Theologically, Judaism incorporates the belief system of the Jewish People, and the concept of “peoplehood” implicates an identity combining ethnic and nationalistic components as well as religious ones. The Jewish religion is particular to the Jewish People and, consequently, it has no conversionary mission or imperative to impose its beliefs on other peoples. In contrast, Islam is a conversionary ideology that is in a perpetual state of conflict with those whom it considers infidels. And in the absence of something akin to the Reformation in Europe, it is questionable whether any amount of dialogue will bring about the philosophical change necessary to foster compatibility with western ideals or Jewish values.
The western media’s refusal to acknowledge the theological divide is puzzling given its seeming preoccupation with denigrating traditional religious beliefs in its own cultural backyard. Mainstream journalists routinely lampoon conservative Christians as ignorant and bigoted, and often depict observant Jews as fanatical, right-wing zealots. Yet, they are reluctant to apply the term “jihadist” to Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter with ties to al-Qaeda, to identify as an Islamist terrorist Umar Abdulmutallab, the attempted Detroit plane bomber, or to examine the doctrinal underpinnings of the acts of either.
The press instead takes its cue from President Obama, who refers to such terrorists as “extremists” so as to distance them from both the religious inspiration for their actions and their status as heroes amongst many within their faith community. Not surprisingly, the typical news analysis tends to ignore the religious motivations for their acts of terror, and instead focuses on “personal disaffection” or “loneliness” as mitigating factors. The media’s consistent refusal to acknowledge and condemn what is clearly religious-based terrorism leaves one to wonder whether its worldview is shaped by any affinity for western democratic values at all, or by a dogmatic political correctness that has become a dysfunctional secular religion.
While one may certainly disagree with Rabbi Yosef’s remarks, one cannot deny the history that may well inform his viewpoint. Traditional Arab society never treated Jews with respect or tolerance as those concepts are understood in the West. Although Jews may be considered “People of the Book,” they are still considered infidels who occupy a dubious position within Islamic society. An objective review of the history shows that Arab-Muslim antipathy for Jews did not spontaneously arise in 1948 with the modern rebirth of Israel – any more than German antisemitism was created by the Nazis. And unless the Arab-Muslim world can change the way it regards Jews, and acknowledge their historic connection to and presence in the Land of Israel, there can never be true peace or acceptance, only a cold, Balkanized status quo.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Freedom of Speech Under Legal Assault in The Netherlands
Smears, Lawsuits and Geert Wilders: Personal Liberty and Freedoms on trial in The Netherlands or The Limits of Islamist Intimidation
Zionist House – Toronto
20 January 2010
Rabbi Jonathan Hausman
As this is a Jewish sponsored event, I suppose that I should begin by saying Erev Tov l’kulam. We just watched a film which contains much Arabic, perhaps I should say ahlan wa’sahlan ya ashabi. We find ourselves in Toronto . Therefore, I will say Good Evening and Bonsoir e merci d’etre venu!
A couple of housekeeping details before I begin. Thank you to Meir Weinstein and the Jewish Defense League of Canada for sponsoring this evening’s event. Thank you to my dear friend Bjorn Larsen. Bjorn, your trust and sage counsel are invaluable and the confidence that you place in me is surely greater than I warrant or deserve. My thanks also to the Zionist Centre of Toronto for having the courage not only to stand up for sake of liberty and freedom of speech, but for the requisite fortitude to not be cowed or bullied as some institutions have vis a vis the discussion that we must conduct this evening.
John Peter Zenger, a German immigrant to the colony of New York , wrote the following upon his acquittal from the charge of sedition and libel, a trial brought as a consequence of Zenger’s criticism of the Royal Governor William Cosby. His two-prong defense was simple, yet effective. First, Zenger did not advocate the overthrow of the Crown so there could be no sedition; and, second, free speech. Zenger was acquitted by a jury of his peers. His words are instructive for us this evening and speak to the work of my good friend Geert Wilders.
“No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves.”
As some of you may know, my dear friends Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish have been hounded amidst attempts to prevent each from delivering their own particular messages by way of their own books, articles and postings regarding the issues contained in Fitna. Nonie’s presentation in at Boston University scarcely took place, at the local Hillel Center rather than on campus, due to a suspicious bathroom fire minutes prior to her presentation in the very building in which she was supposed to speak this past December. What does freedom mean for either of these two brave souls, colleagues of Geert Wilders, if the values of free expression and debate are withheld due to outside politically correct agitation? As a son of New England, I correctly hold that we must resolutely stand on the side of free expression of ideas as embodied by Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island who believed that the open market place of ideas would determine the worth and value of that which is expressed without worry as to who would be offended.
My friends, we just watched Fitna, a film produced by my dear friend The Honorable Geert Wilders. This film deals with the clear, present and continuing danger posed to Western civilization by a religio-political onslaught, a war that burst onto the scene of history from the Arabian Peninsula in 621/622 CE and continues in declared doctrinal fashion to this very day, though its supporters try to hide it from public view. Its doctrinal underpinnings are supercessionist and seek nothing less than the imposition of Sharia, Islamic legal dictates, upon an entire world that it seeks to conquer. We who are American, Canadian, Dutch and European, indeed, all who are freedom-loving people must mobilize and steel ourselves for the sacrifices ahead.
In the United States, we are bombarded with arrests of Najibullah Zazi, David Headley, 5 young Pakistani-Americans arrested overseas, Nidal Malik Hassan (all US citizens, some US born) arrested in separate plots against America, along with irrefutable evidence that each was spurred to engage in such acts due to the doctrinal and theological underpinnings of Islam, to conduct Jihad against the Dar al-Harb so that the Dar al-Islam will expand, so that Sharia will be imposed as a way of life upon those of us in the civilizational West. Most recently, the onslaught continues with the failed attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up Northwest Airline Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day (a date chosen for its specific resonance for Christians). Cells abound, Jama’at al-Fuqra, Lashkar e-Taibeh, Hezbollah and Hamas cells to name a few, along with their odious presence and message disseminated by way of the internet. The warning signs are extant and real, but ignored.
We must understand that the Islamist danger is amorphous and moveable…The Sudan, Somalia , Yemen , Lebanon , Afghanistan , Pakistan , the mullocracy of Iran …and we must understand that it is theologically, teleologically, and irrefragably rooted within larger Islamic civilization. Nidal Hasan, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the Fort Dix Five, the Arkansas Recruiting Station shooting, threats to the lives of Kurt Westergaard/Nonie Darwish/Wafa Sultan/Geert Wilders, 9/11 for the US, 7/7 for the UK, 3/11 for Spain…we must determine the causal connection between all of these acts if we are to change our outlook. As my 14 year old would say when trying to solve a math problem “Okay, Dad, but how do I connect the dots if the information is under my nose?”
She is correct. We must articulate the proper goal to defeat the enemy, to understand that evil exists and that it is amorphous. Most important, let’s articulate the name of the enemy (an enemy that is often embedded amongst civilians and in positions of influence), for in naming the enemy, we can create the necessary alliances to win, we can inspire those who would support us and we can look toward a leader in this war who can give inspiration, raise hopes, and articulate the dreams of Western values of pluralism, women’s rights, liberal education in its classic sense, democracy, and personal liberty for one and all. These are not principles which dictate that disloyalty results in beheadings or that the enemy should so be beheaded. These are also not principles that require that free speech by curtailed due to perceived insults, for when did the corollary to free speech become the freedom not to be insulted.
My friends, the enemy is the Islamist who wants to spread his religion by way of sword and other manifestations of duress as his strategy, by religiously sanctioned dissimulation, by using our own liberal sensibilities and laws against us…and by requiring us to act as dhimmi in our own countries. Dhimmitude, the neologism denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands, which includes surrender even in our home countries which have minority Muslim populations. Instead of these immigrants acculturating and assimilating American, Canadian, Australian or Dutch values, we become dhimma which represents a behavior dictated by fear (perhaps, due to terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, and servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. By our peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, we obtain the security for our lives, property and religion, but we concomitantly accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. We would become subdued, according to the Qur’an 9:29.
Is this the future that we want for ourselves, our children and grandchildren? Is this the Jewish life that our forebearers saw as they immigrated in droves to these shores? Is this the kind of professional leadership that we desire from those who, elected or self-appointed, represent our needs, wishes and desires from the Jewish communal perspective? Will we tolerate those leaders who dialogue, but have no background or interest in accessing the appropriate resources to distinguish with whom it is appropriate to conduct dialogue? Or, will we bow to the the excresence of political correctness and accept those who maintain the attitude that “at least, we are talking?” Talking, sure. But, talking toward what end?
My friends, I do not want to accommodate to the doctrinally and religiously intolerant and no Jewish leader represents me who does so. Further, I prefer to fight for and to protect my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Much is written in the press of Americans being weary… Afghanistan , Iran , Iraq , Somalia , Sudan , and Yemen . How can one gain strength with regard to the challenges ahead, how can courage be provided for the battle that lays in the immediate and distant future if our leaders do not properly frame the nature of the threat? How can clarity overcome weariness if the nature of the threat is not identified properly?
My friends, President Bush mischaracterized the enemy in his declaration of “a war on terror” as terror is only a tactic. President Obama mislabeled the battle ahead as one against ‘violent extremists” as did Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with her phrase ‘man-caused disasters.’ A leader must identify the danger clearly, succinctly, and with courage. My friends, the enemy is Islamism. The operational tactic is global jihad along with the bi-fold subtactics of terror and dissimulation (taqiyyah). Jihad and taqiyyah are doctrinally sanctioned by the Qur’an and the Sunna. Someone is needed to provide the clarity that so many of our leaders are reticent to articulate.
This is why Geert Wilders is so important, why this event matters and why his trial (begun today) is critical. Geert Wilders is one of the leaders, if not the preeminent political leader who speaks with clarity regarding the host of battle issues facing us. He is currently under prosecution because he will not bend to the multicultural or Islamist ethic that he sees tearing his country asunder. He sees the requirement that those who move to The Netherlands must make a conscience choice…to become Dutch in culture and outlook. This is no more than we would expect of immigrants who arrive in the US or Canada. But, unlike the current American or European leadership, Geert Wilders has the courage to not only state it rightfully, but to proclaim it forcefully. He is a social libertarian, and manifests conservative governing principles. He is unique…spend some time with him. You will find that he is not from the far or extreme right European parties in which the most facile, yet obdurate, critics place him. He is not nativist, fascist or dictatorial. He is not an anti-Semite.
He is a true friend of Israel, advocates moving the Dutch Embassy to Jerusalem, lived in Israel for 2 ½ years and has visited over 20 times since. He sees Israel as a sister democracy which must be able to live in peace and security and speaks openly of Israel as the proverbial canary in the coal mine, the first front in the battle for the world’s soul against Islamism. As Israel goes, so goes the free world … according to my friend Geert. The alliances and formative influences from the extremes attributed to Wilders eschew any connection to him…due to his love of freedom, democracy for all, and his abiding love and passion for the Jewish people, Israel and the United States. Our leaders reject this at their peril and the peril of Jewish political existence.
Wilders stands for the principle of freedom of speech and thought. The lawsuit begun today, politically motivated by those who call him an extremist, xenophobe and hate-mongerer, has gained traction due to the fractious and relativist nature of Dutch coalition politics. Interestingly, it is the Muslim population of The Netherlands that has threatened Wilders life, such that Wilders must travel with a full security detail. It is his freedom of movement that has been curtailed and necessitates the variety of safe houses that he must inhabit. At least, Wilders lives. Not so his friend Pim Fortuyn (a communist and homosexual who saw his lifestyle impacted by the growing Islamist threat in Holland) or Theo Van Gogh, both of whom were brutally murdered by Islamists for the “crime of defaming Islam.” As many have stated, one wonders who is really in danger…Wilders or those who threaten the likes of Wilders. It is his freedom of speech and expression that is now under assault in the Dutch court system due to the excesses of multicultural hate speech laws promulgated by Holland and the EU and the chill of political correctness.
Fitna, my friends, is more than the simple definition of the word (struggle, usually with the denotation of chaos). It is the chaos that we’ve seen on the screen this evening, chaos with the goal of subjugating the majority indigenous non-Muslim population in our home countries and the imposition of increasingly limited speech, and personal and societal freedoms. It is the challenge to a struggling indigenous Christian society in Europe (indeed, in many countries around the world) to a growing, restless and agitating Muslim population that sees the religiously inspired and doctrinally mandated necessity of imposing Islam on the world versus the person of Wilders’ stature who wants to maintain Europe’s and Holland’s historical identity.
My friends, I leave you with a charge tonight from a simple Rabbi who hails from Boston, the cradle of liberty in North America.
We must affirm that our Western political life practices perfectly and fully the freedom of speech and those other freedoms enshrined in America’s First Amendment, so there is nothing to discuss any longer.
We must insist that our leaders discuss how we defend our freedom and the people’s democracy against oppression and tyranny, against a political-religious ideology that blatantly advocates for the extermination of Jews, Christians, Hindus…any one who is outside the confines of the Dar al-Islam, as this is the cornerstone of Wilders platform.
The solution is not dialogue with anti-democratic political movements, which try to win footholds in the Western democracies, hidden behind the façade of religion as its protective shield. What compromise should the dialogue lead to? Where is the middle ground between tyranny and freedom? The solution is not the elastic retreat, which ends with the exact compromise that political Islam wants “I respect your taboos, if you respect mine”. It is a bad bargain for us. A democracy has got no taboos and Islamism, political Islam is all about taboos.
Therefore, it is democracy’s task and responsibility to assure that international society understands and accepts that we will never permit Islamic totalitarian political dogmas — with or without belief — to take root in our free and democratic society.
This is our mission.
This is our task.
This is our mantra.
This is our calling.
May we be worthy of the challenge.
I can’t thank you enough for your warmth, hospitality and time.
Zionist House – Toronto
20 January 2010
Rabbi Jonathan Hausman
As this is a Jewish sponsored event, I suppose that I should begin by saying Erev Tov l’kulam. We just watched a film which contains much Arabic, perhaps I should say ahlan wa’sahlan ya ashabi. We find ourselves in Toronto . Therefore, I will say Good Evening and Bonsoir e merci d’etre venu!
A couple of housekeeping details before I begin. Thank you to Meir Weinstein and the Jewish Defense League of Canada for sponsoring this evening’s event. Thank you to my dear friend Bjorn Larsen. Bjorn, your trust and sage counsel are invaluable and the confidence that you place in me is surely greater than I warrant or deserve. My thanks also to the Zionist Centre of Toronto for having the courage not only to stand up for sake of liberty and freedom of speech, but for the requisite fortitude to not be cowed or bullied as some institutions have vis a vis the discussion that we must conduct this evening.
John Peter Zenger, a German immigrant to the colony of New York , wrote the following upon his acquittal from the charge of sedition and libel, a trial brought as a consequence of Zenger’s criticism of the Royal Governor William Cosby. His two-prong defense was simple, yet effective. First, Zenger did not advocate the overthrow of the Crown so there could be no sedition; and, second, free speech. Zenger was acquitted by a jury of his peers. His words are instructive for us this evening and speak to the work of my good friend Geert Wilders.
“No nation, ancient or modern, ever lost the liberty of speaking freely, writing or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves.”
As some of you may know, my dear friends Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish have been hounded amidst attempts to prevent each from delivering their own particular messages by way of their own books, articles and postings regarding the issues contained in Fitna. Nonie’s presentation in at Boston University scarcely took place, at the local Hillel Center rather than on campus, due to a suspicious bathroom fire minutes prior to her presentation in the very building in which she was supposed to speak this past December. What does freedom mean for either of these two brave souls, colleagues of Geert Wilders, if the values of free expression and debate are withheld due to outside politically correct agitation? As a son of New England, I correctly hold that we must resolutely stand on the side of free expression of ideas as embodied by Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island who believed that the open market place of ideas would determine the worth and value of that which is expressed without worry as to who would be offended.
My friends, we just watched Fitna, a film produced by my dear friend The Honorable Geert Wilders. This film deals with the clear, present and continuing danger posed to Western civilization by a religio-political onslaught, a war that burst onto the scene of history from the Arabian Peninsula in 621/622 CE and continues in declared doctrinal fashion to this very day, though its supporters try to hide it from public view. Its doctrinal underpinnings are supercessionist and seek nothing less than the imposition of Sharia, Islamic legal dictates, upon an entire world that it seeks to conquer. We who are American, Canadian, Dutch and European, indeed, all who are freedom-loving people must mobilize and steel ourselves for the sacrifices ahead.
In the United States, we are bombarded with arrests of Najibullah Zazi, David Headley, 5 young Pakistani-Americans arrested overseas, Nidal Malik Hassan (all US citizens, some US born) arrested in separate plots against America, along with irrefutable evidence that each was spurred to engage in such acts due to the doctrinal and theological underpinnings of Islam, to conduct Jihad against the Dar al-Harb so that the Dar al-Islam will expand, so that Sharia will be imposed as a way of life upon those of us in the civilizational West. Most recently, the onslaught continues with the failed attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up Northwest Airline Flight 253 over Detroit on Christmas Day (a date chosen for its specific resonance for Christians). Cells abound, Jama’at al-Fuqra, Lashkar e-Taibeh, Hezbollah and Hamas cells to name a few, along with their odious presence and message disseminated by way of the internet. The warning signs are extant and real, but ignored.
We must understand that the Islamist danger is amorphous and moveable…The Sudan, Somalia , Yemen , Lebanon , Afghanistan , Pakistan , the mullocracy of Iran …and we must understand that it is theologically, teleologically, and irrefragably rooted within larger Islamic civilization. Nidal Hasan, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, the Fort Dix Five, the Arkansas Recruiting Station shooting, threats to the lives of Kurt Westergaard/Nonie Darwish/Wafa Sultan/Geert Wilders, 9/11 for the US, 7/7 for the UK, 3/11 for Spain…we must determine the causal connection between all of these acts if we are to change our outlook. As my 14 year old would say when trying to solve a math problem “Okay, Dad, but how do I connect the dots if the information is under my nose?”
She is correct. We must articulate the proper goal to defeat the enemy, to understand that evil exists and that it is amorphous. Most important, let’s articulate the name of the enemy (an enemy that is often embedded amongst civilians and in positions of influence), for in naming the enemy, we can create the necessary alliances to win, we can inspire those who would support us and we can look toward a leader in this war who can give inspiration, raise hopes, and articulate the dreams of Western values of pluralism, women’s rights, liberal education in its classic sense, democracy, and personal liberty for one and all. These are not principles which dictate that disloyalty results in beheadings or that the enemy should so be beheaded. These are also not principles that require that free speech by curtailed due to perceived insults, for when did the corollary to free speech become the freedom not to be insulted.
My friends, the enemy is the Islamist who wants to spread his religion by way of sword and other manifestations of duress as his strategy, by religiously sanctioned dissimulation, by using our own liberal sensibilities and laws against us…and by requiring us to act as dhimmi in our own countries. Dhimmitude, the neologism denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands, which includes surrender even in our home countries which have minority Muslim populations. Instead of these immigrants acculturating and assimilating American, Canadian, Australian or Dutch values, we become dhimma which represents a behavior dictated by fear (perhaps, due to terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, and servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. By our peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, we obtain the security for our lives, property and religion, but we concomitantly accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. We would become subdued, according to the Qur’an 9:29.
Is this the future that we want for ourselves, our children and grandchildren? Is this the Jewish life that our forebearers saw as they immigrated in droves to these shores? Is this the kind of professional leadership that we desire from those who, elected or self-appointed, represent our needs, wishes and desires from the Jewish communal perspective? Will we tolerate those leaders who dialogue, but have no background or interest in accessing the appropriate resources to distinguish with whom it is appropriate to conduct dialogue? Or, will we bow to the the excresence of political correctness and accept those who maintain the attitude that “at least, we are talking?” Talking, sure. But, talking toward what end?
My friends, I do not want to accommodate to the doctrinally and religiously intolerant and no Jewish leader represents me who does so. Further, I prefer to fight for and to protect my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Much is written in the press of Americans being weary… Afghanistan , Iran , Iraq , Somalia , Sudan , and Yemen . How can one gain strength with regard to the challenges ahead, how can courage be provided for the battle that lays in the immediate and distant future if our leaders do not properly frame the nature of the threat? How can clarity overcome weariness if the nature of the threat is not identified properly?
My friends, President Bush mischaracterized the enemy in his declaration of “a war on terror” as terror is only a tactic. President Obama mislabeled the battle ahead as one against ‘violent extremists” as did Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with her phrase ‘man-caused disasters.’ A leader must identify the danger clearly, succinctly, and with courage. My friends, the enemy is Islamism. The operational tactic is global jihad along with the bi-fold subtactics of terror and dissimulation (taqiyyah). Jihad and taqiyyah are doctrinally sanctioned by the Qur’an and the Sunna. Someone is needed to provide the clarity that so many of our leaders are reticent to articulate.
This is why Geert Wilders is so important, why this event matters and why his trial (begun today) is critical. Geert Wilders is one of the leaders, if not the preeminent political leader who speaks with clarity regarding the host of battle issues facing us. He is currently under prosecution because he will not bend to the multicultural or Islamist ethic that he sees tearing his country asunder. He sees the requirement that those who move to The Netherlands must make a conscience choice…to become Dutch in culture and outlook. This is no more than we would expect of immigrants who arrive in the US or Canada. But, unlike the current American or European leadership, Geert Wilders has the courage to not only state it rightfully, but to proclaim it forcefully. He is a social libertarian, and manifests conservative governing principles. He is unique…spend some time with him. You will find that he is not from the far or extreme right European parties in which the most facile, yet obdurate, critics place him. He is not nativist, fascist or dictatorial. He is not an anti-Semite.
He is a true friend of Israel, advocates moving the Dutch Embassy to Jerusalem, lived in Israel for 2 ½ years and has visited over 20 times since. He sees Israel as a sister democracy which must be able to live in peace and security and speaks openly of Israel as the proverbial canary in the coal mine, the first front in the battle for the world’s soul against Islamism. As Israel goes, so goes the free world … according to my friend Geert. The alliances and formative influences from the extremes attributed to Wilders eschew any connection to him…due to his love of freedom, democracy for all, and his abiding love and passion for the Jewish people, Israel and the United States. Our leaders reject this at their peril and the peril of Jewish political existence.
Wilders stands for the principle of freedom of speech and thought. The lawsuit begun today, politically motivated by those who call him an extremist, xenophobe and hate-mongerer, has gained traction due to the fractious and relativist nature of Dutch coalition politics. Interestingly, it is the Muslim population of The Netherlands that has threatened Wilders life, such that Wilders must travel with a full security detail. It is his freedom of movement that has been curtailed and necessitates the variety of safe houses that he must inhabit. At least, Wilders lives. Not so his friend Pim Fortuyn (a communist and homosexual who saw his lifestyle impacted by the growing Islamist threat in Holland) or Theo Van Gogh, both of whom were brutally murdered by Islamists for the “crime of defaming Islam.” As many have stated, one wonders who is really in danger…Wilders or those who threaten the likes of Wilders. It is his freedom of speech and expression that is now under assault in the Dutch court system due to the excesses of multicultural hate speech laws promulgated by Holland and the EU and the chill of political correctness.
Fitna, my friends, is more than the simple definition of the word (struggle, usually with the denotation of chaos). It is the chaos that we’ve seen on the screen this evening, chaos with the goal of subjugating the majority indigenous non-Muslim population in our home countries and the imposition of increasingly limited speech, and personal and societal freedoms. It is the challenge to a struggling indigenous Christian society in Europe (indeed, in many countries around the world) to a growing, restless and agitating Muslim population that sees the religiously inspired and doctrinally mandated necessity of imposing Islam on the world versus the person of Wilders’ stature who wants to maintain Europe’s and Holland’s historical identity.
My friends, I leave you with a charge tonight from a simple Rabbi who hails from Boston, the cradle of liberty in North America.
We must affirm that our Western political life practices perfectly and fully the freedom of speech and those other freedoms enshrined in America’s First Amendment, so there is nothing to discuss any longer.
We must insist that our leaders discuss how we defend our freedom and the people’s democracy against oppression and tyranny, against a political-religious ideology that blatantly advocates for the extermination of Jews, Christians, Hindus…any one who is outside the confines of the Dar al-Islam, as this is the cornerstone of Wilders platform.
The solution is not dialogue with anti-democratic political movements, which try to win footholds in the Western democracies, hidden behind the façade of religion as its protective shield. What compromise should the dialogue lead to? Where is the middle ground between tyranny and freedom? The solution is not the elastic retreat, which ends with the exact compromise that political Islam wants “I respect your taboos, if you respect mine”. It is a bad bargain for us. A democracy has got no taboos and Islamism, political Islam is all about taboos.
Therefore, it is democracy’s task and responsibility to assure that international society understands and accepts that we will never permit Islamic totalitarian political dogmas — with or without belief — to take root in our free and democratic society.
This is our mission.
This is our task.
This is our mantra.
This is our calling.
May we be worthy of the challenge.
I can’t thank you enough for your warmth, hospitality and time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)